lyndon taylor wrote:If you want to promote meat eating, which promotes killing, and call that Buddhist, its your kamma to deal with.

Being vegetarian doesn't make you somehow more holier and pure. We should keep in mind that Hitler was a vegetarian.

No, that just means Hitler didn't develop bad kamma from killing animals to eat. He got his bad kamma from other things. The people that act holier than Thou is the meat eaters, obviously.

From my experience I've never met one meat eater who acts holier than thou. On the contrary it's always vegans and vegetarians that behave that way. Their spiritual progress seems to be stunted because of their egotistical pride in their diets.

18 years ago I made one of the most important decisions of my life and entered a local Cambodian Buddhist Temple as a temple boy and, for only 3 weeks, an actual Therevada Buddhist monk. I am not a scholar, great meditator, or authority on Buddhism, but Buddhism is something I love from the Bottom of my heart. It has taught me sobriety, morality, peace, and very importantly that my suffering is optional, and doesn't have to run my life. I hope to give back what little I can to the Buddhist community, sincerely former monk John

You're not eating meat because you think the Buddha ate meat, you're eating meat because you like to eat meat, and you don't seem to care that innocent animals had to die so you can eat meat, that's what I call Holier than Thou.

18 years ago I made one of the most important decisions of my life and entered a local Cambodian Buddhist Temple as a temple boy and, for only 3 weeks, an actual Therevada Buddhist monk. I am not a scholar, great meditator, or authority on Buddhism, but Buddhism is something I love from the Bottom of my heart. It has taught me sobriety, morality, peace, and very importantly that my suffering is optional, and doesn't have to run my life. I hope to give back what little I can to the Buddhist community, sincerely former monk John

Disciple wrote:
Being vegetarian doesn't make you somehow more holier and pure.

No, not holier and more pure. It just makes a Buddhist perhaps more logically consistent to eat vegetarian, since the Buddha taught that it's misconduct to kill animals for meat.

It is not logically consistent. The Buddha ate meat himself.

Santi253 wrote:
This has already been shared on this forum:

At his final days in the parinibbana sutta, the food that led to his death was at one time translated as pork. The terms have been translated as “pig’s truffles” which was originally mistranslated as pork. Modern scholars including, Arthur Waley, K. E. Neumann, and Mrs. Rhys Davids have corrected this to “the food of pigs” which are mushrooms. Today, the majority of Buddhist scholars agree that the Buddha ate mushrooms, which may have been poisonous and led to his death at the age of 80...

A scientific sample is one that is done without any bias toward selecting the things to be studied or evaluated. The passages mentioning what the Buddha ate appear to fall into that category as they are spread out through the Pali Canon and refer to other teachings, not about diet and thus, appear to be random mentions of his diet. As such we can use the above as a representative sample. If we count all of the above plus the last meal, the meal Sujata gave to the Buddha and the mention of meat above, we come to: 35 vegetarian meals and 1 meat meal.

This results in a diet by the Buddha that is 97% vegetarian. This is the equivalent of eating vegetarian all year except for 10 days per year which is less than one meat meal per month. Such a person even in modern times would most likely be defined as a vegetarian who makes some rare exceptions as may be necessary for social reasons. Of the 35 vegetarian meals 74 percent (26) were vegan (no meat and also no animal products). Even if we include the possibility of there being a second meat meal in the passage about General Siha (see above), then it still calculates out to 95% vegetarian (35 out of 37) diet of the Buddha.https://dhammawiki.com/index.php?title=Diet_of_Buddha

At his final days in the parinibbana sutta, the food that led to his death was at one time translated as pork. The terms have been translated as “pig’s truffles” which was originally mistranslated as pork. Modern scholars including, Arthur Waley, K. E. Neumann, and Mrs. Rhys Davids have corrected this to “the food of pigs” which are mushrooms. Today, the majority of Buddhist scholars agree that the Buddha ate mushrooms, which may have been poisonous and led to his death at the age of 80

.

According to the orthodox Theravada it was soft pork
):
"It is said in the Great Commentary that Sukaramaddava is the
already available meat of the pig that is tender and
succulent"(Udana commentary (masefield p1025)Cundasuttava.
Pataligamayaga
Suukaramaddavanti suukarassa mudusiniddha.m pavattama.msan"ti
mahaa-a.t.thakathaaya.m vutta.m.

"Some (keci) however, say that sukaramaddava is not pigs meat but
rather bamboo shoots that pigs have trampled upon (maddita), others
that it is a mushroom that has come into being at a spot that pigs
have trampled upon, whilts still others proclaim that sukaramaddava
is the name for a certain elixer". Note that Keci is usually a term
for those outside the orthodox tradition.
Keci pana "suukaramaddavanti na suukarama.msa.m, suukarehi
madditava.msaka.liiro"ti vadanti. A~n~ne "suukarehi
madditappadese
jaata.m ahichattakan"ti. Apare pana "suukaramaddava.m naama
eka.m rasaayanan"ti bha.ni.msu

Disciple wrote:From my experience I've never met one meat eater who acts holier than thou. On the contrary it's always vegans and vegetarians that behave that way. Their spiritual progress seems to be stunted because of their egotistical pride in their diets.

The most holier-than-thou person that I know is a big proponent of meat eating.
Almost all the other people that I know who have a holier-than-thou outlook are also meat-eaters.

- - -

David N. Snyder wrote:Yes, I don't doubt that. I should clarify, I meant if everyone were Buddhist and upholding the 5 precepts.

So one can not uphold the 5 precepts, and still count for a Buddhist? Niiice.

- - -

lyndon taylor wrote:there are many things you can do to make yourself a better person, being vegetarian or reducing your meat intake is just one of them, BUT EATING MEAT DOES NOT MAKE YOU SUPERIOR, it doesn't do much for your health, either.

Of course meat eating makes one superior. As you can see, meat eaters have no qualms like you. And while you and your fellows are here exchanging tales of woe, the meat eaters don't care a straw. You think about them, but they don't think about you. Yes, that makes them superior.

Sam Vara wrote:
Sure. Peas are legumes, and they are fine eaten raw. Mangetout and sugar snap peas are usually grown for that purpose. I used to eat fine french beans raw (until warned about it) and with no ill effects.

Interesting! Those would never be eaten raw in my country. If you have, without any side effect, I guess it may be because their lectin content is not as high as that in other legumes which do require more thorough cooking? Interesting info I had never heard of anyway.

It is common procedure in philosophical studies to test a principle by applying it universally as if everyone held that belief to see if it is logically consistent (see Kant for example). I know you don't like hypotheticals, but it is used to test logic in various principles. I do not expect all Buddhists to be vegetarians, nor do I expect them to all uphold the precepts, it is just a test of the principle.

On another note about the "holier than thou" issue, both vegetarians and non-vegetarians do this. Don't shoot the messenger as they say, so this doesn't disprove either position, just the poor argumentation skills on both sides, but not in all participants of this debate (here and elsewhere).

“When, Mahānāma, one has gone for refuge to the Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Saṅgha, in that way one is a lay follower.”

“In what way, Bhante, is a lay follower virtuous?”

“When, Mahānāma, a lay follower abstains from the destruction of life, from taking what is not given, from sexual misconduct, from false speech, and from liquor, wine, and intoxicants, the basis for heedlessness, in that way a lay follower is virtuous.”

One who trusts in the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha and still commits infractions regarding the five precepts is still called a Buddhist. Monks and nuns who break some of these precepts have to confess, are reprimanded, or are radiated from the Sangha, but that does not make them non-Buddhist, it just makes them non-virtuous.

It would be hard-found to consider Sarakāni (who took to drink) a non-Buddhist:

Sarakāni Sutta (SN 55.24) wrote:
"Sarakāni the Sakyan [...] drank intoxicating drink!"
[...]
"Sarakani the Sakyan had gone for refuge over a long time to the Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Sangha, so how could he go to the nether world?"

My apologies for straying a bit off topic.

P.S. I am in no way encouraging anyone to not follow the 5 precepts, just refuting a particular point.

I would like to again please reiterate that I don't judge people who eat meat. I prepare and serve it to my family. I just happen to realize that, for my own personal health, I don't need meat in my own body.